1916-P Buffalo Nickel - is it???

I said it "looks" that way and what I mean by that is if you look at a cent with an Improper Alloy Mix, it's surface is still smooth whereas the nickel's "streaks" are rough and appear to be on the surface and not throughout the coin (throughout the coin = down to the core). If you look at a "Woody" (if that's what a cent with an Improper Alloy Mix is called) the streaks should also be in/on the edge of the coin, hence, Improper Alloy Mix appears to be a condition that is throughout the coin and not just on the surface. I do not believe my nickel is like that. I believe it has rough streaks on the surface caused by contamination of some sort and has nothing to do with the alloy mix, but this is my conclusion (ie. - when metals are heated to the point of melting, contaminants can/usually rise to the surface). I can't find anything that specifically discusses buffalo nickels and the weird raised streaks that sometimes occur on them (never seen them on other nickels). The Improper Alloy Mix defintion even said it was primarily with Wheat Cents, but it didn't say it didn't apply to Buffalo Nickels either.

My nickel should be in any day now and I'm buying a camera tomorrow, so when the nickel gets here I will take edge photos of it to see if I can show what I'm trying to explain here (nice normal smooth edge surface with no streaks).

I hope the new pics will help everyone to understand what I'm trying to say here. :goofer:

Ribbit

Ps: Idhair - I noticed it looked like it took 10 days for you to get a response from PMG about some pictures. Is that somewhat the normal turnaround (several days) for questions posted to them?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I learned the Ask PMG board is not a fast way to get information.
A quick call to them fixed things. They took the images of the notes but just forgot to email them. They do some nice work.

 

I submitted a question to NCS & PMG and kept looking back to see if they had replied yet, which they hadn't, and I noticed your question and then the disparity in dates, from submittal to being answered. I also noticed the lack of questions being asked on the three boards. I guess most peeps do what you did but I'll have to wait for an answer on the board since I submitted photos with my questions.

I'll remember to submit questions a week early from now on. :mouth:

Ribbit

 

Here are photos of the coin. I took several shots, from different angles, in hopes you can see what I see in hand. I'm still getting used to my camera (got it yesterday) so the pics aren't as good as they should be.

Ribbit

 

Here are three more angles:

 

Here are a few photos of the edge to show the "marks" are limited to the surface:

 

Here's one last shot of the date:

 

It's still looks like a buff with a bad alloy mix that's been improperly cleaned.

Seiously, I doubt it is a surface contaminant (although it would be tough to rule out a contaminant, the fact that these coins are seen from time to time with a very similar look makes it unlikely).

Regardless, please keep us posted on what you learn/hear & thanks for the new photos (the new camera I presume)...Mike

 

Here's another one I've acquired but it's seen more wear so it's not as profound as the 1916. The most notable mark is the shiny strip starting just below 2 o'clock and runs across the buffalo's butt and another one under the belly. It's the shiny strips that are the trademark of this peculiar occurance and the marks are on both obverse & reverse and running in identical directions (flip-parallel). Note the two examples have marks running in different directions on the obverse but the reverse marks do too.

Ps: I added a reverse photo of the 1916 in an earlier post, since I realized I forgot to and if you will look at it and the obverse of it, you will note the lines do not act like I say they do above (flip-parallel). However, what you don't know it the reverse isn't 180 degrees from the obverse and the marks show the degree of shift so not only is there a doubling going down with the date, there's also a shifted die (or whatever it's called).

Ribbit

Pps: If it hadn't been for the marks, I wouldn't have caught the shift.

 

Nice buff nickels.

 

I noticed something with the reverse photo of the 1916. There's a planchet flaw just above 2 o'clock on the rim (not a "dim ding") and there's also something messed up with the "C" in AMERICA (where the planchet flaw is and probably caused by the planchet flaw) and there also appears to be a little something happening in the E PLURIBUS UNUM.

This is one messed up Buffalo!

Ribbit

 

Here's another 1916-P Buffalo for reference purposes:

 

Howdy fellow coin peeps, :thumb:

I'm getting better at using my camera so now I have a much better pic of the doubling on my buffalo. The local coin shop dude says it's called ejection doubling, although I've never heard that term used here. With this pic, our wonderful CT experts should be able to better classify it now. :bow:

Ribbit

 

okay, Toad:
I am sorry that I missed this one beofre.
But--
Ya better sit down:

NO IT AIN'T the DDO!

Nice strike doubling, but if you saw the DDO, you would never forget it, it is as extreme or more than the 1955 DDO Lincoln.

Sorry, buddy.

 

I posted the new pic so the type of doubling could be figured out. I know it ain't the real deal but like I said in an earlier post (this thread) this is what I would call the Poor Man's 1916 Doubled Die Buffalo.

Ribbit

 

chatter strike = strike doubling = ejection doubling = machine doubling = machine doubling damage All different terms used over the years (in roughly that order) to describe the same thing. Die shift and shift doubling have also been used, but they have also been used to describe hub doubling also known as doubled dies. So those two terms should be avoided at all costs so as to avoid confusion.